‘Unfair’ to impose sanction against equity partners over pension and legal aid payments

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has found it ‘would be unfair or disproportionate to impose a sanction’ against two equity partners of a Somerset firm. The pair had been accused of causing or allowing pension contributions to be used for the general running of the firm instead of paying the contributions to the firm’s pension provider. 

Bhavani Hogarty, admitted to the roll in 1991, and Maeve Vickery, admitted in 2000, were also alleged to have caused or allowed client money from the Legal Aid Agency to be retained in the firm’s office account beyond 14 days of receipt which led to a shortfall of £7,737.92 on the client account.

Both solicitors admitted breaching Rules 6.1 and 19(b) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. They were cleared of any other breaches of the SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

No sanction was imposed and no order made against Hogarty or Vickery. The tribunal also made no costs order.

The SDT judgment said the SRA withdrew one of its alleged breaches, which the tribunal described as ‘appropriately withdrawn’.

Hogarty and Vickery were equity partners at Pardoes Solicitors LLP. Managing partner Guy Andrew Adams also faced these allegations and others. He admitted all allegations against him and a separate judgment was given. The firm is now under new management.

Between August 2019 and July 2020 the firm collected pension contributions from staff but did not pay the money to the pension provider. The money was instead used to find general office expenses. The total owed in pension arrears was £57,078.22. The firm engaged in a repayment plan with Scottish Widows and by September 2021, pension payments were up to date.

The judgment found ‘there was no evidence of [Hogarty and Vickery] having actively permitted Mr Adams to use the employee and firm pension contributions in such a way’.

It added: ‘In contrast, the evidence showed that once the second and third respondents had become aware of the pension arrears issue in September 2019, they had taken all the appropriate steps available to them to solve the pension issue such as informing the affected employees of the issue, pressurising Mr Adams to solve the issue, referring the matter to the TPR, agreeing on a payment plan with the TPR and otherwise ensuring that the pension arrears were brought up to date.’

The tribunal found the SRA had failed to prove the facts to the requisite standard.

The tribunal accepted Hogarty and Vickery’s evidence that they had not been aware of the legal aid payment issue until the SRA’s investigation.

Making no sanction or order, the judgment said there was a low level of culpability and ‘no evidence of direct harm’. Mitigating factors included Hogarty and Vickery’s ‘long and otherwise unblemished career’ and ‘the willingness…to admit liability for breach of Rules 6.1 and 19.1(b)…[which] had been pragmatic and demonstrated their genuine insight’.